Date: 03/31/2015
Final
BILL SUMMARY for HB15-1290
HOUSE COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
| Votes: View--> | Action Taken: |
| <none> | <none> |
04:39 PM
The committee recessed.
04:55 PM -- HB15-1290
The committee returned to order. Representatives Salazar and Esgar, co-prime sponsors, presented House Bill 15-1290. This bill creates a private civil right of action against the employer of a peace officer who interferes with, destroys, or retaliates against a person who is lawfully recording an incident involving the peace officer, or when the peace officer intentionally seizes or otherwise obtains the recording without permission. In the action, the person who lawfully recorded the incident is entitled to actual damages, a civil penalty of $15,000, and attorneys fees and costs.
The bill clarifies that an action brought under the bill does not preclude the district attorney from charging a peace officer with tampering with physical evidence or any other crime. The bill defines retaliation as a threat, act of harassment, or act of harm or injury upon any person or property, when that action is directed to or committed against the person making the recording.
Representative Salazar provided information about case law on the issue of the recording of police-related incidents. He characterized the issue as one of training for police officers.
05:01 PM
The sponsors discussed issues related to governmental immunity, sovereign immunity, constitutional principles, and vicarious liability with the members of the committee. Representative Salazar spoke extensively about the training of police officers. Representative Salazar responded to questions regarding damages to be awarded to a plaintiff under the bill, and case law pertaining to remedies where a peace officer interferes with the recording of an incident. Representative Salazar responded to questions regarding lines of defense available to defendants in such cases.
05:17 PM
The following persons testified regarding HB 15-1290:
05:18 PM -- Mr. Levi Frasier, representing himself, testified in support of the bill. Mr. Frasier discussed an incident during which he recorded police activity associated with a drug arrest, and the police confronted him about the recording. Mr. Frasier responded to questions regarding the ramifications of the incident in terms of punishment meted out to the police involved in the incident. Mr. Frasier discussed subsequent efforts he undertook to preserve and disseminate the video footage he filmed, and his appearances in the media concerning the incident. Mr. Frasier discussed an initial incident he had with the police.
05:33 PM -- Sheriffs Lou Vallario and Chad Day, representing the County Sheriffs of Colorado, testified in opposition to the bill. Sheriff Day explained that the sheriffs are not against the recording of police, and discussed remedies already available to address police interference with such activity. Sheriff Day expressed some concerns about certain terms in the bill. Sheriff Day responded to questions regarding policies observed within his office pertaining to being recorded by members of the public. Sheriff Vallario discussed certain reservations he has about the bill.
05:41 PM -- Mr. Jason Warf, representing the Southern Colorado Cannabis Council, testified in support of the bill.
05:43 PM -- Mr. Mike Violette, representing the Fraternal Order of Police, testified in opposition to the bill. Mr. Violette explained why he feels the bill is a "solution in search of a problem," and discussed options available to the police for obtaining recordings of police-related incidents. Mr. Violette responded to questions regarding the need for police to secure a warrant to obtain such recordings.
05:52 PM -- Mr. Greg Romberg, representing the Colorado Press Association and the Colorado Broadcasters Association, testified in support of the bill. Mr. Romberg made a suggestion on how to improve the bill. Discussion ensued regarding the difference between the media and the general public.
05:56 PM -- Chief Kevin Paletta, representing the Colorado Association of Chiefs of Police, testified in opposition to the bill. Chief Paletta discussed situations in which recordings of police incidents may be evidence of a crime, and thus subject to potential sequestration by the police. Chief Paletta cited a newspaper editorial that illustrates his concerns with the bill, and discussed the civil remedies available to plaintiffs under the bill. Chief Paletta responded to questions regarding the circumstances under which he could be convinced to support the bill, and methods for deterring police misconduct in the area of interacting with members of the public recording police-related incidents. Representative Salazar addressed claims made by Chief Paletta and others about the latitude afforded to police in confronting persons recording incidents.
06:10 PM
Discussion ensued regarding what steps the police should take to preserve recordings of a police-related incident or a crime while seeking a warrant to obtain the recordings. Representative Salazar responded to questions regarding a fact pattern related to the recording of an assault against a police officer.
06:20 PM -- Ms. Lisa Calderon, representing the Colorado Latino Forum, testified in support of HB 15-1290. Ms. Calderon discussed the scope of police interference with recording of police-related incidents by the public, and addressed suggestions made by law enforcement officers on how to improve the bill. Ms. Calderon discussed incidents during which she has been threatened with arrest by the police, and supported levying penalties against the police when they abridge the right of members of the public to record incidents. Ms. Calderon discussed the benefits of the bill in the area of community trust. Ms. Calderon responded to questions regarding the enforcement mechanisms in the bill, and the geographic scope of the issue of police interference with public recording of incidents. Discussion ensued regarding statistics associated with police interference with public recordings of police incidents.
06:30 PM -- Mr. Rich Orman and Mr. Tom Raynes, representing the Eighteenth Judicial District and the Colorado District Attorneys' Council, testified in opposition to the bill. Mr. Raynes addressed claims made during earlier testimony. He responded to questions regarding how the police might seize a recording device when it contains evidence of a crime. Mr. Raynes discussed the litigious nature of the bill, and the potential effect of the bill on the ability of police officers to perform their duties. Mr. Raynes made suggestions on how to improve the bill. Mr. Raynes responded to questions regarding the consequences of, and remedies for, a police officer illegitimately seizing a recording of a police-related incident. Mr. Orman addressed earlier discussion concerning a court case about exigent circumstances associated with public recording of a police-related incident. Mr. Orman addressed earlier testimony about securing video evidence of a crime's commission.
06:41 PM
Mr. Raynes responded to questions regarding remedies available for intentionally destroying an incident recording.
06:43 PM -- Ms. Denise Maes, representing the American Civil Liberties Union, testified in support of HB 15-1290. Ms. Maes discussed the constitutional right to record police, and a pattern of police seeking to stop such activity. She discussed the need for the bill, and policies in place in local jurisdictions pertaining to public recording of police incidents. Ms. Maes addressed claims made during earlier testimony, and discussed the remedies available to the public in instances of police misconduct. Ms. Maes responded to questions regarding the treatment of the preservation of evidence of a crime by the bill, and the compulsion of witness testimony. Discussion ensued regarding jurisprudence and exigent circumstances.
06:55 PM
Ms. Maes responded to questions regarding remedies available to members of the public for illegal interference of recording activity by the police other than lodging a lawsuit under HB 15-1290. Ms. Maes responded to further questions regarding the ability of the police to seize a recording device to prevent the loss of evidence of a crime, and the preservation of such evidence while a warrant is sought. Discussion ensued on this point, and the potential for amending the bill to demonstrate that the threshold for a successful lawsuit under the bill is strict liability.
07:08 PM -- Ms. Meghan Dollar, representing the Colorado Municipal League, testified in opposition to the bill. Ms. Dollar supported law enforcement's position on the bill, and discussed the resources available to municipalities for both police officer training and addressing lawsuits launched under the bill. Ms. Dollar responded to questions regarding remedies available to the public when a police officer illegitimately obstructs the recording of a police-related incident without passing HB 15-1290. Discussion ensued on this point. Discussion followed regarding the potential for laying the bill over to work on amendments to address certain concerns.
07:19 PM -- Ms. Irene Rodriguez, representing KGNU, testified regarding the bill. Ms. Rodriguez discussed the need to hear from underrepresented voices, and related an incident during which she was beaten while recording police activity. She discussed acts of police brutality during this incident, and the underreporting of incidents of police brutality. Ms. Rodriguez discussed the lack of protections for the public in terms of police interaction. Ms. Rodriguez responded to questions regarding the incident she discussed.
07:25 PM
The bill was laid over for action only.